I work somewhere in the middle of biology/neuroscience and ML. Interviews for essentially the same job (e.g., building brain-inspired robots) are hilariously different depending on how the org views itself.

In a "science" organization, the interviews mostly involved talking about what I've done in the past and how I'd approach new issues (technical and behavioral). There were certainly a few probing questions about things that seemed designed to check up on claims, but my experience seemed mostly taken at face value. A coding test, for example, was skipped because an interviewer had already seen some of my code and thought it was fine.

"Tech" interviewers seemed to want everything "proved" on-site during an all-day slog. I reversed strings and traversed graphs on a whiteboard. Someone quizzed me on facts and figures about the human eye (which they were reading out of the same book I learned them from). To me, this seems to test immediate recall and stamina/stress tolerance more than anything actually related to my R&D skills.